renforge_run_scenario

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses automatic screenshot capture and compact diagnostics on failure, but it omits other important behavior such as state mutation, side effects, or how failures affect execution beyond the stop_on_failure parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentences about failure behavior and supported actions earn their place without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step orchestration, seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is too thin. It lacks step object structure, parameter meanings, and operational context, even though an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a list of supported step actions, which partially clarifies the 'steps' parameter, but it does not explain project_path, timeout, state_profile, stop_on_failure, or capture_on_failure. The supported actions list is helpful but insufficient for seven parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool runs a multi-step live scenario in one call, with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported actions, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like renforge_autopilot or the individual step tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'in one call' implies this is for batching multiple steps, and listing supported actions hints at use cases. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over renforge_autopilot or individual step tools, nor does it provide exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.